-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It’s easy to be perturbed by Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape, abortion, and God’s will. But a little context here is important.
One, it’s important to understand what Murdock actually meant. He wasn’t saying that the criminal, immoral act of rape carries the approval of God. Rather, Murdock said that life — that is, the unborn child — produced by the horrible act of rape is still precious to God. The two are quite distinct. Of course, I have no delusion that media outlets will get this right. If they do, it will be buried deep in the story.
Here is Murdock’s statement after the debate:
God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.
Two, many Republican candidates have inarticulately expressed their views on economic and foreign policy concerns. The most damaging part of this presidential campaign for Mitt Romney was his “47 percent” remark. Admittedly, it was said in private and not during a televised debate, but it was both unwise and damaging. Conservatives hoping to see a change in the Oval Office should be just as willing to forgive Murdock as they were willing to forgive Romney.
Three, the pro-life issue isn’t a liability for Republicans. Democrats’ pro-abortion extremism — defined as abortion on demand, without restrictions, up to the point of birth (and after) — appeals to their base, and their base only. Republicans’ pro-life instincts appeal to their base and a growing number of moderates who truly want abortion to be rare. Far more Americans today identify as pro-life than pro-choice. Republicans are winning on this issue, and must take a principled stand.
Fourth, I agree that Republicans need to be more careful of “inartfully” (to borrow a phrase) articulating their views on the sanctity of unborn life. Don’t give the media or your opponent anything to run with. But the same holds true for their economic views. It’s easy for a wrongly phrased answer to come across as plutocratic and dismissive of the legitimate needs of the poor and the welfare of the middle class— and, in our current economic situation, that type of gaffe is far more damaging to one’s electoral hopes than misspeaking on a social issue that most voters are ignoring right now.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/24/murdock-is-getting-a-bad-rap-o
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
mike 3/505| 10.24.12 @ 10:14AM
David,
Thank You. Nicely Done! Send this over to Kaminsky.
Regards,
Mike
fmm| 10.24.12 @ 10:31AM
He only needs to send it to Kaminsky because of those who misinterpreted what Kaminsky said, as is now happening to Murdock as he predicted.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 12:27PM
He needs to send it to Kaminsky and to you as well.
Gee, did anything sound familiar in this man's column that you might have read before?
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:57AM
I agree.
Make sure Ross Kaminsky reads it, David.
Ralph Gizzip| 10.24.12 @ 11:24AM
For an ideology that prides itself on nuance they certainly are obtuse.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 12:32PM
Yes, the Liberals love to point out the nuances and hidden meanings in conservative statements but ignore their gigantic lies, missteps, and clearly offensive remarks they make.
I seem to recall a certain liberal talk show host saying that he favored genocide to reduce the population and those that are undesirable. I remember a vice president telling women to vote with their body parts.
Slacker| 10.24.12 @ 5:05PM
Economic conservatism and social conservatism are separate and distinct ideologies. The electoral impact of the two cannot be conflated. the 47% comment hasn’t really hurt Romney. A Murdock style gaffe would end his campaign.
If the pro-life position really does appeal to moderates (a doubtful assessment) then this gaffe is intensely damaging. It is precisely remarks like Murdock’s that drives away moderates. Do you believe republican extremism is more palatable than democrat extremism?
db| 10.24.12 @ 6:34PM
"God does not want rape..."
But they happen all the time. That means -- playing by Mourdock's rules here -- either God can't stop rape, or won't.
So...tell me again what this God person is good for?
Bob K| 10.24.12 @ 8:50PM
Not very original!
Voltaire sarcastically asked that same question long ago in "Candide."
"......the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite , My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has." Job 42:7
jfxgillis | 10.24.12 @ 7:55PM
God doesn't want rape but He wants rape babies?
Look. There's a way to make the argument Murdock was trying to make, but neither he nor the blog item above made it.
Go over to the "Problem of Evil" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and scroll down to "Theodicy" section, #7.
The problem with THAT is that classical liberalism directly conflicts with Revealed truth in this instance. One or the other has gots to go.
Bob K| 10.24.12 @ 9:10PM
God doesn't need us to justify him as the creator. He needs us to advance the work of his creation, which is what Mourdock, in his very human, imperfect way, was doing.
Realistic| 10.24.12 @ 8:57PM
"... Democrats' pro-abortion extremism — defined as abortion on demand, without restrictions, up to the point of birth (and after..."
THIS STATEMENT IS A LIE...NOT A MISUNDERSTANDING, NOT MISDIRECTION, NOT FUDGING...IT IS A COMPLETELY ABOMINATAL LIE. AND HOW SICK SICK SICK TO SPREAD THIS LIE.
Democrats think that each and every woman has the right to decide - to have the baby or not. And, as a rule Democrats do not believe abortion after the first trimester. Obviously, if the mother's life is in danger from the pregnancy at a later time, then the abortion issue is a medical one to be decided by the woman and her doctor.
But, to blatently state that Democrats support abortion up to the "point of birth (and after..." is saying we support the killing of babies even after they are born - like we'd support murdering a newborn baby! HOW DISPICABLE OF YOU TO FOMENT THIS LIE.
I truely hope that Republicans, neoCons and others have more common sense and less hatred for patriotic citizens who happen to be Democrats that to believe this article.
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:55AM
Before you crawl back under your rock, Unrealistic, let me remind you:
It was a Democrat president, Bill Clinton, who VETOED a ban on partial-birth abortion, which is the deliberate murder of a baby as he is being delivered.
And it is the current Democrat president, Barack Obama, who voted against protecting children who survive botched late-term abortions while he was a state legislator.
So just who is fomenting lies and being despicable? (You can crawl back under your rock now.)
Realistic| 10.24.12 @ 9:09PM
And, have any of you thought about the REAL results of making a woman bear the child of a rapist. An unwanted child is born - no assurance of adoption - will you care for it???
And what about a married woman who is raped and impregnated; it would destroy her, her husband and their other children to force her to have the rapists child and daily live with her husband and children, growing bigger each day. Can any of you put yourself in that family? Or will you just laugh and guffaw at that situation???
And, what if it happened in your family? Oh, oh, then you might hear that God doesn't want you to suffer this way and justify your own right to an abortion....or just a "late miscarriage"?
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:51AM
Oh, please, Unrealistic...
If you knew anything you'd know that woman impregnated in a rape are less likely to abort than woman impregnated in consentual sex.
No spare us your idiotic appeals to emotion and go crawl back under your rock.
Realistic| 10.24.12 @ 9:38PM
Here's a good quote from NBC
"On a range of issues – from abortion, health care, climate change, and coal to the minimum wage, campaign finance, and bank bailouts, to name a few – Romney has shifted positions and even been diametrically opposed to views he had held previously.
It’s something that’s haunted him dating back to 1994 – in his first venture into politics – when he ran for the Senate against the late Ted Kennedy. “Mitt Romney isn't pro-choice; he's not anti-choice; he's multiple choice,” Kennedy said of Romney’s stance on abortion in a memorable line from a Kennedy-Romney debate."(
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_.....bcnews.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/_news/2012/10/24/14674141-exclusive-president-obama-says-tight-race-doesnt-surprise-him-despite-accomplishments&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned By=msnbc|politics|politics=1^12=Landing Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing Hostname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit Type to Content=Internal to Mixed=1&__utmk=35351138)
Roger| 10.25.12 @ 11:04AM
"Murdock said that life — that is, the unborn child — produced by the horrible act of rape is still precious to God."
That may be what he meant to say, but that is not what he said. Mourdock said pregnancy resulting from rape is God's intention. There is a HUGE difference between a supreme being intending a pregnancy occur vs. holding life precious. I would agree with you that God values life that has resulted from rape. Yet, I would disagree that God intends to create pregancies after rape. That is what Mourdock said. Perhaps he did mispeak. We all mispeak at times. When we do, it is important to clarify our comments. Mourdock did NOT clarify the "intention" concept of his comment. Therefore, I take him by his words. So far Mourdock has said God creates life, life is a gift from God, God does not approve of rape, God does not intend for rapes to occur, God intends for preganancies resulting from rape to occur. I would agree with Mourdock on all points, but the last one. I find his last point a bit disturbing actually.